Invasion: A Strategic Exploration of Modern Warfare

By Fouad Sabry

What is Invasion

An invasion is a military offensive of combatants of one geopolitical entity, usually in large numbers, entering territory controlled by another similar entity. Generally, invasions have objectives of conquering, liberating or reestablishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution. Not every military offense with the goal to capture territory or remove a government is an invasion.

How you will benefit

(I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:

Chapter 1: Invasion

Chapter 2: Iran-Iraq War

Chapter 3: Siege

Chapter 4: 1948 Arab-Israeli War

Chapter 5: Military Strategy

Chapter 6: Military History of the United States

Chapter 7: Scorched Earth

Chapter 8: Gulf War

Chapter 9: 2003 Invasion of Iraq

Chapter 10: Military History of the United Kingdom during World War II

(II) Answering the public top questions about invasion.

Who this book is for

Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of Invasion.

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: May 26, 2024

Book preview

Chapter 1: Invasion

A military offensive known as an invasion occurs when a large number of combatants from one geopolitical entity enter territory controlled by another such entity, usually with the intention of either: conquest; liberation or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; changing the established government or obtaining concessions from said government; or a combination of the foregoing. A war can start because of an invasion, it can end because of an invasion, or it can start because of an invasion. Invasion operations are often large-scale and strategically planned and carried out because of this.

According to archeological data, invasions have been a common occurrence since prehistory. Before radio communications and quick transportation, moving armies as a single, hulking force was the only method for a military in antiquity to ensure it had enough reinforcements. This naturally resulted in the invasion tactic. With invasion came governmental, religious, philosophical, and technological interactions that influenced the evolution of much of the ancient world. - introducing a lot of foreigners into new areas, which has social, cultural, and economic repercussions on the native population as well as the invaders.

States that may be threatened by their neighbors frequently take protective measures to stall or stop an invasion. These precautions historically included fortifications in addition to the use of geographic barriers such as rivers, marshes, or rough terrain. The Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, and the Danewerk are renowned examples of this type of defense, which uses an extensive and well-defended barrier to actively prevent invading forces from entering the nation. Trench lines and, more recently, minefields, cameras, and motion detectors have also been used as such obstacles.

As an alternative, a network of forts or castles might be used to erect the fortifications along a frontier. These constructions, like the Maginot Line, are intended to stall an invasion long enough for the defending country to gather an army large enough for defense or, in certain situations, counterinvasion. Forts can be placed such that the garrisons can block the invaders' supply routes. The idea behind these scattered forts is that an attacker would have to lay siege to the buildings since they could not afford to get around the defenses.

The idea of building expansive static defenses to counter land-based threats is mostly out of date today. Military planners prefer lighter, more mobile fortifications as a result of the employment of precise air operations and extensive mechanization. The fall of the Maginot Line at the start of World War Two demonstrated the antiquatedness of huge defenses. Large population centers like cities or towns are typically used by nations as defence positions against modern invasions. To negate the defender's ability to wage war, the invader must take these points. These positions are protected by mobile armored and infantry divisions, yet the defender is still relatively mobile and can typically escape. The Iraqi Army's positions during the 2003 invasion of Iraq in Baghdad, Tikrit, and Basra during the key battle in the Iraq War are a notable example of the utilization of cities as fortifications. The Soviet Red Army at the Battle of Kursk or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan are only two examples of how a defence has used these mobile assets to launch a counteroffensive.

Static emplacements are still beneficial for defense against air and naval attacks, nevertheless. Naval mines continue to be a simple but efficient means of protecting ports and cutting off supply routes. The best option to defend against air strikes is still with massive static air defense systems that incorporate antiaircraft guns and missile launchers. The North Vietnamese made extensive use of such systems in the Hanoi area. Additionally, the United States has spent a lot of effort and money building a static defense grid called the National Missile Defense system that is designed to intercept nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Instead of reinforcing their border territories, island nations like the United Kingdom or Japan and continental states with long coastlines like the United States have relied on a sizable naval presence to thwart an invasion of their nation. However, a predominance of naval strength and the capacity to maintain and support that defense force are typically necessary for a successful naval defense.

The defending force may also withdraw in exceptionally big nations in order to enable a counterattack by luring the invaders farther into enemy territory. One result of this strategy is that the invading force spreads out too thinly, making supplies challenging and the lines more vulnerable to attack. Although expensive, this strategy assisted the Soviets in halting the German advance at Stalingrad. As happened during the Second Punic War, sending too many reinforcements can result in a lack of defenders in the invaders' territory, opening the door for a counter-invasion from other regions.

There are many various ways that an invasion might happen, and each one has both arguments for and against it. Invasion by land, sea, air, or any combination of these is one of these.

An invasion over land is the uncomplicated entry of military forces into a region utilizing land connections, typically crossing borders or other clearly defined zones, such as a demilitarized zone, and overpowering defensive positions and buildings. Even though this strategy frequently yields a swift victory, troop movements are generally sluggish and susceptible to disruption from the environment. Additionally, because most geopolitical entities adopt defensive positions in regions that are most vulnerable to the aforementioned invasion techniques, it is challenging to conceal plans for this form of invasion.

Invasion by land typically occurs after, or perhaps even during, attacks on the target by other means in modern warfare. In order to soften the target, airstrikes and cruise missiles fired from ships at sea are frequently used. Other, more covert preparations might include quietly gaining support from the populace, killing potentially dangerous military or political figures, and cutting off supply routes when they enter neighboring nations. In some instances, those alternative methods of attack render ground assault obsolete. For example, the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented the Allies from using infantry forces to invade the Japanese home islands. While some ground soldiers are still required in situations like these to occupy the captured land, they are admitted within the provisions of a treaty and are therefore no longer considered invaders. Basic overland invasions are less common as unmanned, long-range combat develops; frequently, the conventional fighting is effectively ended before infantry troops acting as peacekeepers reach (see Applications regarding non-state combatants in this article).

An invasion by sea is when military forces enter a territory via a body of water, frequently a mainland next to the water or an island. When there is no other way to invade the target country, this is typically utilized either in conjunction with another invasion strategy, especially before the development of aircraft. Arguments in support of this strategy typically center on the capability of performing a surprise attack from the sea or the fact that the area's naval defenses are insufficient to fend off such an assault. However, this invasion strategy is frequently criticized due to the exorbitant cost of specialized equipment, such as amphibious vehicles, and the difficulty of constructing defenses, which typically results in a high death toll in exchange for a negligibly tiny gain. Underwater dangers and a lack of adequate shelter are two issues that frequently arise during invasions from the sea. Marine landing craft at Tarawa got stuck on a coral reef and were bombarded from the shore. Before they could reach the shore, other landers were sunk, leaving the tanks they were transporting stranded in the water. The majority of the few initial wave survivors wound up pinned down on the beach. The island was taken over, but it cost a lot of lives, and the American public protested heavily as a result.

Modern warfare and air invasion are inventions of the 20th century. The concept entails using aircraft to drop armed forces into a territory. The military units either evacuate the aircraft while it is still in the air and use parachutes or other landing gear to land in the area they are invading, or the aircraft either lands, allowing the military units to disembark and try to accomplish their goal. By seizing strategic locations deep behind enemy lines, such bridges and crossroads, air attacks have frequently been employed to open the way for a ground- or sea-based invasion. However, an air-only invasion has never been successful. Reinforcement and resupply are two pressing issues. An airborne force that is too small simply puts itself in an immediate envelopment situation, whereas a large airborne force cannot be adequately supplied without colliding with ground forces. Arguments in favor of this approach typically center on the ability to target particular locations that may not always be simple to reach by land or sea, a higher likelihood of surprising the enemy and overwhelming defensive structures, and, frequently, the requirement for fewer forces because of the element of surprise. Arguments opposing this approach frequently center on the capability to carry out such an invasion, such as the enormous number of planes required to carry a sufficient number of troops, and the requirement for highly advanced information in order for the invasion to be successful.

The Battle of Crete, Operation Thursday (the Chindits' second operation during the Burma Campaign), and Operation Market Garden are the closest analogs to a real air invasion. The latter was a September 1944 attack on the Netherlands, which was under German occupation. In an effort to seize bridges from the Germans and clear the way for the Allies' advance, about 35,000 troops were dropped by glider and parachute into hostile terrain. Even though the Germans were caught completely off guard by such a large force, the assault was a tactical disaster, and after 9 days of action, the Allies were only able to retreat back to their own lines after suffering over 18,000 casualties. It appears that the air invasion is a tactic whose time may have passed in the twenty-first century given the significant advancements achieved in anti-aircraft systems.

The last, and arguably most significant, objective of the invading force is to pacify the area after political and military lines have been crossed. When the regular military is defeated or absent, civilian or paramilitary resistance forces frequently continue to oppose an invasion. Although it can be challenging and frequently impossible to completely pacify a conquered nation, popular support is essential to the success of any invasion.

Leaflets, books, and radio broadcasts can all be used as forms of media propaganda to persuade resistance fighters to give up and discourage others from supporting their cause. Peacemaking, sometimes known as winning hearts and minds, lessens the motivation for civilians to engage in resistance. Reeducation, allowing conquered people to take part in government, or, particularly in destitute or besieged places, just giving people food, drink, and shelter can accomplish this. Invading forces may congregate and parade through the streets of conquered towns occasionally in an effort to highlight the pointlessness of continuing the conflict. Public executions of enemy soldiers, rebels, and other conspiracies may also be part of these shows. The demise or imprisonment of a well-liked leader, especially in antiquity, could occasionally trigger a swift capitulation. However, this frequently has the unintended consequence of producing martyrs around whom the general populace might organize their opposition. Sir William Wallace was an illustration of this since he continues to represent Scottish nationalism centuries after being executed by the English.

A force that invades will soon find itself withdrawing if there isn't a constant supply of food and water. Xerxes I spent three years gathering supplies from all over Asia prior to his invasion of Greece; Herodotus recorded that the Persian army was so enormous that it drank the rivers dry..

The significance of leadership's ability to communicate with the invasion force is another factor to take into account. To ensure that his orders were promptly carried out, a king in the past frequently had to personally lead his forces, as was the case with Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE). At that time, the abilities required to lead troops in battle were just as crucial as those required to govern a nation in times of peace. When the king had to be elsewhere, messengers would deliver information to the rear, frequently on horseback or, in situations like the Battle of Marathon (490 BCE), with quick runners.

Sloops and cutters were employed to transmit information via sea whenever possible. The initial report that Nelson had destroyed the French forces at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 came to Britain from HMS Pickle.

Even tiny units of skirmishers may now communicate with a larger invading force, verify instructions, and request airstrikes and artillery backup thanks to the invention of Morse Code and voice communications through radio and satellite. The German blitzkrieg tactic depended on these connections because infantry commanders conveyed defensive positions to tanks and aircraft.

In terms of diplomacy, public relations, and propaganda, having an invitation to intervene with the goal of restoring order or righting wrongs may aid an invasion (or potential invader). To call in foreign aid, dissident organizations, fifth columns, or official circles may band together. Examples include:

The First Crusade's invasion and conquest of the Levant (1096–1099) from the perspective of the Byzantine Empire was the consequence of an invitation sent by Emperor Alexios I Komnenos in 1095, requesting assistance against the Turks in Anatolia.

During the First Nobles War (1215–1217), English barons opposed to King John asked French Prince Louis to invade England.

A request for William of Orange to invade Britain in 1688 aided the Glorious Revolution.

Wolfe Tone asked for French intervention (the unsuccessful Expédition d'Irlande, Prior to the Irish Rebellion of 1798 (which began in 1796).

The Prague Spring of 1968, which culminated in the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968, is said to have included calls for Soviet intervention from some members of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia.

Note the traditional story in the Tale of Bygone Years of how Varangian invaders came to establish long-term dominance in Novgorod to see how national foundation-legends can recur the theme of asking foreign soldiers to come and dominate a people (and subsequently throughout Russia).

Invasion strategies were questioned in the 20th and 21st centuries for their ability to defeat so-called fourth generation warfare, which involves non-state soldiers. In this scenario, one or more combatant groups—which could include citizens, foreign agents, mercenaries, politicians, religious figures, and regular military personnel—are under independent leadership rather than centralized state control. These organizations operate in smaller numbers, are not constrained by geographic boundaries, and are not always reliant on state sponsorship. The nation's regular army may be routed, the government may be overthrown, but asymmetric warfare on the part of these groups can be perpetuated indefinitely. Groups like this are not readily defeated by plain invasion, or even constant occupation. to manipulate the truth for political or sensational purposes.

The results of an invasion may differ depending on the goals of the invaders and the defenders, the effectiveness of the invasion and the defense, and whether or not the warring parties have reached a settlement. The most frequent result is territory loss, which is typically accompanied by a change in administration and frequently results in the losing side losing direct control of that government. This can occasionally lead to that nation becoming a client state, which is frequently followed by demands to pay tribute or restitution to the victor. In other instances, the outcome of an invasion may be as simple as a return to the status quo. This is evident in attrition wars, where the primary strategic goal is the destruction of personnel and supplies, or when a country that was once subdued and is now occupied by an aggressive third party regains control of its own affairs (i.e. Western Europe following the Normandy landings in 1944, or Kuwait following the defeat of Iraq in 1991). As was the case with the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, the invasion may occasionally be strategically restricted to a specific geographic area that is divided into a separate state.

{End Chapter 1}

Chapter 2: Iran–Iraq War

The Iran–Iraq War occurred between September 1980 and August 1988 and was fought between Iran and Iraq.

It began with the invasion of Iran by Iraq and lasted nearly eight years, until both parties accept United Nations Security Council Resolution 598.

Iraq's principal justification for attacking Iran was to prevent Ruhollah Khomeini, the 1979 leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, from transferring the new Iranian philosophy to Iraq; Additionally, the Iraqi leadership under Saddam Hussein feared an Iranian invasion, A theocratic state whose population consists primarily of Shia Muslims, would exploit sectarian tensions in Iraq by rallying Iraq's Shia majority against the Baʽathist government, which was officially secular and Sunni Muslim-dominated.

Iraq sought to supplant Iran as the dominant force in the Persian Gulf, Prior to the Islamic Revolution, this was deemed unattainable due to Pahlavi Iran's economic and military strength as well as its close ties with the United States and Israel.

The Iran–Iraq War was precipitated by a lengthy history of territorial border disputes between the two countries, as a result of which Iraq intended to reclaim the eastern bank of the Shatt al-Arab, which it had surrendered to Iran in the 1975 Algiers Agreement. There were a number of proxy forces operating for both countries: Iraq and the pro-Iraqi Arab separatist militias in Iran were supported by the National Council of Resistance of Iran; whereas Iran re-established an alliance with the Iraqi Kurds, being supported primarily by the Kurdistan Workers' Party. Throughout the fight, Iraq received substantial financial, political, and logistical support from the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, France, Italy, Yugoslavia, and the vast majority of Arab nations. Iran got a substantial amount of aid from Syria, Libya, China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and South Yemen despite its relative isolation.

The tactics employed by both sides have been compared to those of World War I, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across fortified defensive lines, manned machine-gun posts, bayonet charges, Iranian human wave attacks, Iraq's extensive use of chemical weapons, and intentional attacks on civilian targets. The state-sanctioned exaltation of martyrdom among Iranian youngsters was a prominent aspect of the war; the discourses on martyrdom created in the Iranian Shia Islamic context led to the widespread use of human wave attacks and thus had a lasting impact on the conflict's dynamics.

The war is known in the Arab world and a few other regions as the First Gulf War (Arabic: حرب الخليج الأولى).

That name, or just the Gulf War, used by Western sources as well, until 1991, when it was used to describe the war between the American-led coalition and Iraq.

The Iran–Iraq War was formerly known as the Persian Gulf War until the Persian Gulf War of 1990–1991, Consequently, the preceding conflict was named the First Persian Gulf War.

However, in addition to the Iran-Iraq conflict, The Iraq–Kuwait War of 1990, The Iraq War from 2003 to 2011 has sometimes been referred to as the Second Persian Gulf War.

In April 1969, Iran repudiated the 1937 contract over the Shatt al-Arab, and Iranian ships stopped paying tolls to Iraq when using the river.

In contrast to Iraq's Arab nationalism, Iran's Islamic revolution and appearance as a Pan-Islamic movement fueled tensions between Iraq and Iran.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini urged Iraqis to remove the Ba'ath administration, which was met with vehement opposition in Baghdad.

In Iran, severe officer purges (including several executions ordered by Sadegh Khalkhali, the new judge of the Revolutionary Court) and shortages of spare parts for Iran's American- and British-made weaponry debilitated the country's once-powerful military. The Iranian regime executed 85 senior generals between February and September 1979 and drove all major-generals and the majority of brigadier-generals into early retirement.

By September 1980, the revolutionary government had dismissed approximately 12,000 officers of all ranks.

Chaos in a Void, Stephen Pelletiere writes in his 1992 book The Iran–Iraq War:

The human wave has been largely misunderstood by both Western popular media and numerous academics. The Iranians did not just organize large groups of people, aim them at the enemy, and command them to charge. The waves consisted of the 22-person squads described previously [in response to Khomeini's call for the people to defend Iran, each mosque gathered 22 volunteers into a squad]. Each squad was tasked with a particular purpose. In combat, they would push forward to complete their duties, giving the appearance of a human wave surging at enemy lines.

Despite neglect by the new regime, Iran had at least 1,000 operating tanks and several hundred operational planes at the beginning of the conflict, and could consume equipment to acquire spare parts.

Iraq began organizing offensives with confidence in their success. Iran needed both a unified government and spare parts for its American and British-made weaponry. The Iraqis could mobilize as many as twelve mechanized divisions, and morale was high.

In addition, the territory surrounding the Shatt al-Arab provided little difficulty for the Iraqis because they were equipped to cross the river. Iraq accurately assessed that Iran's defenses at the crossing locations of the Karkheh and Karoun Rivers were undermanned and readily traversable. Iraqi intelligence was also informed that the Iranian military in Khuzestan Province, which had two divisions previous to the revolution, had been reduced to a handful of poorly equipped and depleted battalions. Only a few company-sized tank units remained in service.

The most significant conflict involved the Shatt al-Arab waterway. Iran rejected the demarcation line agreed in the November 1913 Anglo-Ottoman Convention of Constantinople. Iran requested that the border run at the thalweg, the channel's deepest point. Iraq took Iran to the League of Nations in 1934, with Britain's encouragement, but their dispute was not settled. Iran and Iraq signed their first boundary agreement in 1937. The treaty established the waterway border along the eastern bank of the river, with the exception of a 6-kilometer (4-mile) mooring zone near Abadan, which was allotted to Iran and ran along the thalweg. Iran sent a delegation to Iraq shortly after the Ba'ath coup in 1969, and when Iraq refused to negotiate a new treaty, Iran withdrew from the 1937 treaty. The Iranian renunciation of the 1937 accord marked the beginning of a period of intense Iraqi-Iranian animosity that lasted until the 1975 Algiers Accords.

The 1974–1975 Shatt al-Arab confrontations were an Iranian-Iraqi confrontation in the vicinity of the Shatt al-Arab waterway in the mid-1970s. Almost one thousand people were murdered in the fighting. Prior to the Iran–Iraq War, it was the most serious dispute over the Shatt al-Arab waterway in contemporary history.

On September 10, 1980, Iraq forcibly reclaimed territories in Zain al-Qaws and Saif Saad that it had been promised under the terms of the 1975 Algiers Agreement but that Iran had never handed over, resulting in Iran and Iraq declaring the treaty null and void on September 14 and September 17, respectively. Consequently, the only lingering boundary disagreement between Iran and Iraq at the time of the Iraqi invasion on 22 September was whether Iranian ships would fly Iraqi flags and pay Iraq navigation fees over a several-mile-long section of the Shatt al-Arab river.

On September 22, 1980, Iraq commenced an all-out invasion of Iran. The Iraqi Air Force launched surprise airstrikes against eleven Iranian airfields in an attempt to destroy the Iranian Air Force. Iran had constructed airplane shelters where the majority of its combat aircraft were kept.

The following day, Iraq launched three simultaneous ground invasions along a 644 km (400 mi) front.

Even though the Iraqi air assault startled the Iranians, the next day, the Iranian air force launched Operation Kaman 99, a massive attack against Iraqi air bases and infrastructure. F-4 Phantom and F-5 Tiger fighter jets attacked oil facilities, dams, petrochemical factories, and oil refineries throughout Iraq, including Mosul Airbase, Baghdad, and the Kirkuk oil refinery. Iraq was taken aback by the